Is God... PG Version

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I argue that there are two Flying Spaghetti Monsters who created the world together.

Is there any way to prove me wrong?

 

[Dre89]

Yes, because a theist can argue they are ibsufficient for being the first cause, the athiest can't.

The FSM necessitate a collection of finite principles, such as time, space, matter, shape, colour etc.

The theist rules out such complexity being plausible for the first cause.

 

[ballin4life]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't necessitate time, space, matter, shape, color at all any more than God does.

 

[jaswa]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't necessitate time, space, matter, shape, color at all any more than God does.

Yes it does - by being a 'flying monster' that is made of 'spaghetti', it necessitates matter, space and energy being in existence.

 

[ballin4life]

By that logic since the Bible talks about God walking around we can conclude that God necessitates matter space energy etc

 

[Dre89]

How is that relevant at all?

That assumes Biblical literalism, which is an implausible interpretation of the Bible.

Any physical object necessiates time, space etc.

Your logic is like saying that there did not need to be billions of years of development before conditions that could harbour life were established.

It's just common sense. A physical object takes X amount of space, and is comprised of X types of matter. Just to name a few.

 

[ballin4life]

How about this one: Jesus is God, yet he was also physical.

The point is that your image of the Flying Spaghetti Monster might just be his manifestation on earth or whatever allows you to say God is nonphysical despite the fact that he walks around in the Bible. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is "nonphysical" in the same way that you claim God is.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

The FSM only takes the form of spaghetti when he decides to be born as his own son.

At other times, he is formless, etc.

It's easy to make claims like this because I know I can never be proven wrong!

 

[Dre89]

But if it's initially formlessness, and meets all the conditions required for formlessness, then you're just saying God sent Itself down in FSM form.

In that case, the FSM would be a physical being observable in the world, yet it has never been observed. Not only that, but it is no longer self necessary, because it is caused, and is no longer an explanation of something we needed an explanation for, so there is no logical reason to assert its existence.

Completely different to God or Jesus.

 

[GwJ]

FSM can be whatever FSM wants to be. It's a god.

 

[Mike]

Here's the thing about the universe: an underlying reality does not exist. It just doesn't. Seemingly clear observables such as the order of events and length of objects will be different depending on your frame of reference - and neither one of them will be "wrong"! Because of this, we cannot say that something is "objectively real", all we can do is model what we observe in an internally consistent fashion. The question "what was before the big bang" is meaningless, as all we can do is create abstract models to approximate what we observe. You might as well ask a blind man about colors.

While your god isn't logically prohibited from existing, it is not the only possibility. You cannot accept one idea, but reject another of equal validity.

 

[jaswa]

FSM can be whatever FSM wants to be. It's a god.

Yep, he can exist in Meinongian metaphysics (just a small joke for you Andre )

 

[Dre89]

But as I've said, theism excludes the first cause being "whatever it wants to be" in the sense that there is a very specific critieria to meet to be considered ontologically necessary. God can manifest Itself in any ontologically continent way It desires (such as Jesus, for example) but that stems from Its omnipotence, Its ontologically necessary state is still, and still must be formless.

So what you are guys are saying is not the FSM as the first cause, or the first cause being a FSM in it's ontologically necessray state, you're just saying a formless God decided to manifest Itself as a FSM as one of its ontologically contingent states. You haven't comprimised theism at all.

 

[ballin4life]

But if it's initially formlessness, and meets all the conditions required for formlessness, then you're just saying God sent Itself down in FSM form.

In that case, the FSM would be a physical being observable in the world, yet it has never been observed. Not only that, but it is no longer self necessary, because it is caused, and is no longer an explanation of something we needed an explanation for, so there is no logical reason to assert its existence.

Completely different to God or Jesus.

BY THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT GOD DOESN'T WORK EITHER SINCE GOD SENT HIMSELF DOWN IN THE FORM OF A MAN IN THE BIBLE.

I explained this 15 posts ago, but part of the point is that even if you posit the existence of this first cause, it's a complete ASSUMPTION to then say the first cause has the other properties of the Abrahamic God. It's just as likely that the first cause had the properties of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Once you assume that a being is nonphysical you can assign any properties you want since "nonphysical" essentially means "doesn't follow the usual laws of physics".

But as I've said, theism excludes the first cause being "whatever it wants to be" in the sense that there is a very specific critieria to meet to be considered ontologically necessary. God can manifest Itself in any ontologically continent way It desires (such as Jesus, for example) but that stems from Its omnipotence, Its ontologically necessary state is still, and still must be formless.

So what you are guys are saying is not the FSM as the first cause, or the first cause being a FSM in it's ontologically necessray state, you're just saying a formless God decided to manifest Itself as a FSM as one of its ontologically contingent states. You haven't comprimised theism at all.

Duh? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a form of theism.

Also I know we talked about this in some other thread but there is no way that omnipotence is necessary for being the first cause.

 

[Dre89]

Omnipotence in the sense of being able to transcend logic contradictions is unexessary and impossible, but omniP in the sense that it can instantiate being is necessary.

My point about the FSM is that it doesn't compromise the logic, because by my criteria, the FSM is only possible as an ontologically contingent manifestation of God, which doesn't refute anything. If by my criteria the FSM could be the self necessary first cause, then you would have a point, but it can't be, so you haven't refuted my argument.

Also, I disagree with the plausability of the Trinity and other other unecessary attributes attributed to God.

 

[ballin4life]

Omnipotence is not necessary, just the ability to have created the universe one time.

And yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a manifestation of the idea of God the "first cause". That's the point. You can't assign any additional attributes to some idea of first cause besides "creating the universe" and whatever is necessary for that. We don't assume unfalsifiable things - like assigning extra properties to a first cause.

Even though I don't necessarily accept the first cause argument (there are alternative explanations), I think it is plausible. However, I think it is completely unfounded to jump from there to the usual idea of God.

To go into the intelligent design thing (which is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually originated): It's entirely possible even that the God that created humans/etc was NOT the first cause and is just some super powerful being. We don't have any evidence that the first cause has that ability or that desire (if it can even have desires).

Just to clarify: There are two possible uses for the Flying Spaghetti Monster - one as the first cause and another as just some other super powerful being (as in the intelligent design argument). My above posts refer to the former and the idea that you can't assign additional attributes to the first cause like intelligence, omnipotence, consciousness, etc.

 

[_Keno_]

Didn't the God of the bible makes humans "in his own image" ?

 

[GwJ]

According to the bible, yes.

 

[Ganonsburg]

God, being God and not of the universe, made man in his own image. Because he isn't of the universe, "image" doesn't mean like a picture or a look-alike or what have you. So it's not a contradiction of God's inherent traits. Rather, "in his image" refers to God giving humans souls.

 

[zxeon]

Can you define "soul"?

 

[Dre89]

Omnipotence is not necessary, just the ability to have created the universe one time.

And yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a manifestation of the idea of God the "first cause". That's the point. You can't assign any additional attributes to some idea of first cause besides "creating the universe" and whatever is necessary for that. We don't assume unfalsifiable things - like assigning extra properties to a first cause.

Even though I don't necessarily accept the first cause argument (there are alternative explanations), I think it is plausible. However, I think it is completely unfounded to jump from there to the usual idea of God.

To go into the intelligent design thing (which is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually originated): It's entirely possible even that the God that created humans/etc was NOT the first cause and is just some super powerful being. We don't have any evidence that the first cause has that ability or that desire (if it can even have desires).

Just to clarify: There are two possible uses for the Flying Spaghetti Monster - one as the first cause and another as just some other super powerful being (as in the intelligent design argument). My above posts refer to the former and the idea that you can't assign additional attributes to the first cause like intelligence, omnipotence, consciousness, etc.

But those attributes are necessary for creation. Seeing as nothing would exist other than Itself, there is nothing outside the reality, or control of God. So in terms of being able to invoke beings, of course It would be omnipotent, there are no limitations on that which is existence Itself.

Traits such as omniscience and entail as well, for if God encompasses all existence, it's absurd to say It has limitations.

Being personal actually is necessary. The difference between a personal and an impersonal God is that a personal God makes the fre choice to create the universe. This option preferred, due to implausabilty of the alternate option, that God is impersonal. If God is impersonal, then God is simply a specific mechanic, holding the potency to invoke our current universe. This makes it very similar to the singularity of the big bang, making it just as implausible (not that the big bang happened, but the idea of the big bang not needng a prior cause) in my framework.

However, what I don't consider a necessary, and therefore plausible attribute is the Trinity. And yes, for all those Christians out there, I do understand it's one God, but three persons, I know it's not a tritheism. Nonetheelss, it's still an unecessary form or complexity.

 

[_Keno_]

God, being God and not of the universe, made man in his own image. Because he isn't of the universe, "image" doesn't mean like a picture or a look-alike or what have you. So it's not a contradiction of God's inherent traits. Rather, "in his image" refers to God giving humans souls.

What nice unjustified assumptions. The bible never says anywhere that "God" is not of this universe. The bible never relates this phrase to the soul, only "IMAGE," which is visible and physical. You can't get rid of this obvious logical contradiction so easily.

 

[Mike]

But those attributes are necessary for creation. Seeing as nothing would exist other than Itself, there is nothing outside the reality, or control of God.

This needs to be justified (but don't bother trying, it can't be).

Being personal actually is necessary. The difference between a personal and an impersonal God is that a personal God makes the fre choice to create the universe. This option preferred, due to implausabilty of the alternate option, that God is impersonal. If God is impersonal, then God is simply a specific mechanic, holding the potency to invoke our current universe. This makes it very similar to the singularity of the big bang, making it just as implausible (not that the big bang happened, but the idea of the big bang not needng a prior cause) in my framework.

This also needs to be justified and further explained. What do you mean by "personal" and why does the lack of it make it similar to the big bang in a relevant way. Also, why is asking "what caused the big bang" even a meaningful question? And by the way, the universe did not start as a singularity.

 

[Dre89]

I said in that post the difference between personal and non personal is that personal freely chooses to create, whereas impersonal is just a mechanism whose job is to create the universe.

Seriously, if you're not going to debate, and just say "we can't know this" and "this is meaningless" then just stay out of the debate. Stop slowing it down for people who realise logic has purpose outside of empiricism.

 

[Mike]

I said in that post the difference between personal and non personal is that personal freely chooses to create, whereas impersonal is just a mechanism whose job is to create the universe.

So how is it logically derived that this god cannot be impersonal?

Seriously, if you're not going to debate, and just say "we can't know this" and "this is meaningless" then just stay out of the debate. Stop slowing it down for people who realise logic has purpose outside of empiricism.

Logic is a system we use to derive truths from other statements assumed to be true. There is NO other use for it. Somehow you manage to come up with the claims you make, but they are either illogical or based on arbitrary premises. If you disagree, explain your reasoning clearly and thoroughly. I am not the only one who requires this from you.

 

[jaswa]

If I don't exist, then the moon is made of cheese.

The above is a logically true statement.

 

[ballin4life]

If I don't exist, then the moon is made of cheese.

The above is a logically true statement.

Depends on your definition of implication. If we can consider counterfactuals, as we often do with these types of statements, then it isn't true. As in "if I drop this book then it will not fall". If I never drop the book then it is true, but if we consider counterfactuals it isn't the case.

Not sure what this is supposed to show anyway.

But those attributes are necessary for creation. Seeing as nothing would exist other than Itself, there is nothing outside the reality, or control of God. So in terms of being able to invoke beings, of course It would be omnipotent, there are no limitations on that which is existence Itself.

Just because "there is nothing outside the reality" of God doesn't mean that God gets control over everything. You don't have control over every cell of your body, for example.

Traits such as omniscience and entail as well, for if God encompasses all existence, it's absurd to say It has limitations.

Does not follow at all. It sounds like you are saying "God must have all properties", which makes no sense. Again, just because God makes up existence doesn't mean he knows what is happening everywhere. You don't know what every cell in your body is doing.

Being personal actually is necessary. The difference between a personal and an impersonal God is that a personal God makes the fre choice to create the universe. This option preferred, due to implausabilty of the alternate option, that God is impersonal. If God is impersonal, then God is simply a specific mechanic, holding the potency to invoke our current universe. This makes it very similar to the singularity of the big bang, making it just as implausible (not that the big bang happened, but the idea of the big bang not needng a prior cause) in my framework.

You have no justification for "impersonal" being implausible. Most causes are not "personal". And I thought the problem of the big bang was one of being simple and not having things like space/time precede it (which I don't agree with but whatever).

In fact, it seems ridiculous to assign a given personality to an all encompassing entity. There is no reason for God to have desire X over desire Y. Surely a God with preferences must have a reason for those preferences - but this makes God not so "simple" and "unchangeable" after all. The mere fact that we can then imagine a universe where God is different (prefers to put 15 planets in the solar system, let's say) puts a huge dent in the idea that God is really self necessary.

However, what I don't consider a necessary, and therefore plausible attribute is the Trinity. And yes, for all those Christians out there, I do understand it's one God, but three persons, I know it's not a tritheism. Nonetheelss, it's still an unecessary form or complexity.

Sure this is arbitrary, but it's no worse than assigning God a given personality. What if God's will just happens to include splitting himself in 3?

 

[jaswa]

Depends on your definition of implication. If we can consider counterfactuals, as we often do with these types of statements, then it isn't true. As in "if I drop this book then it will not fall". If I never drop the book then it is true, but if we consider counterfactuals it isn't the case.

I'm using a pretty standard definition for a conditional as in most logic systems. And no you develop counterarguments to a set of premises and a conclusion, not a stand alone statement. I was going to mess around with Mike since apparently he knows everything about how logic works and all logic can do is produce truth when assuming truth, or whatever he said...

 

[Dre89]

Ballin4death- The difference between God and being and me and my body is that I did not create my body, nor all the tools used to create it. My body is a necessary condition for my existence as a human, I am defined and limited by my body.

A better comparison would be my imagination, I am omniP and omniS in my imagination, for I have complete control over it. This is because my imagination, and all the tools used to sculpt it, are totally dependant on me.

As with the impersonal causes, if anything you've proven my point. Most causes are impersonal because they are specific mechanics themselves caused by prior causes. This just shows exactly why the first cause couldn't be impersonal.

 

[ballin4life]

you don't have complete control over your imagination ... ever had an image pop into your head?

also please address my point that assigning a personality to a cause not simple or unchanging. How can something with a personality be self necessary and encompass all being when it could so easily be different?

 

[Mike]

If I don't exist, then the moon is made of cheese.

The above is a logically true statement.

The statement is logically consistent because for the second half of the statement to have meaning, the first has to be a relation; and assuming you do exist, the first is NOT a relation. The statement does not imply that the moon will ever be made of cheese.

 

[Dre89]

you don't have complete control over your imagination ... ever had an image pop into your head?

also please address my point that assigning a personality to a cause not simple or unchanging. How can something with a personality be self necessary and encompass all being when it could so easily be different?

I knew the imagination analogy wans't perfect and I anticipated nit-[icking in your response, but with regards to creating beings, your imagination is still totally omnipotent, and you still have total knowledge of all these beings.

I never said God had personality, I said God was personal. All I mean by personal is that He freely chooses to act, He is not a mechanism whose existence is intended simply to activate such a mechanic.

 

[ballin4life]

If God has a will then he has desires. What gives him one set of desires over any other? How can a self-necessary, simple being have a particular set of desires? He could easily have different desires.

I'm still not convinced on the omnipotence point either. There's just no reason to assume it. Let's use another analogy. I could build a house, and "all the tools used to create it", and still not be omnipotent or omniscient with regards to the house.

 

[zxeon]

If God is Omnipotent whence cometh evil?

 

[GwJ]

We've already been over that zxeon. Skeptics say God had to have created evil. Believers say he didn't, but it's the result of...something that I don't remember.

 

[Ballistics]

Its interesting to watch bright young men use logic to debate something so illogical as God. While your at it, please debate the tooth fairy, santa clause, and the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[GwJ]

Dont diss nessy bro. :|

 

[Dre89]

Its interesting to watch bright young men use logic to debate something so illogical as God. While your at it, please debate the tooth fairy, santa clause, and the Loch Ness Monster.

This is quite an ironic statement.

If you actually knew anything about the God arguments, they deliberately exclude the possibility of such beings existing. That's the entire reason why those arguments for God existed in the first place, because beings like that couldn't be the first cause. That's why sophisticated athiests never use those arguments, they're only used by unsophisticated athiests and the occassional scientist who thinks his knowledge of science gives them authority to talk about God, an issue they have no education in.

So we can infer you're ignorant of God arguments. To be honest, I've never relaly been a fan of the debating style where you criticise things you don't know anything about.

Things like the tooth fairy don't match the critieria theists say something needs to meet to be the first cause. Ironically, the tooth fairy actually meets the athiest's criteria, because they essentially don't have one. Atheists assert that the first cause, or ultimate reality if they argue there is no first cause consists of a multitude of principles, giving the first cause/ultimate reality a specific form. The funny thing is that is exactly what things like tooth fairies are. The athiest just assumes that the improbability of the TF being the first cause makes it illogical to believe in it (which is true), but they can't actually disprove it's existence as the first cause in their own framework, yet the theist can in their own framework.

 

[Ballistics]

I'm glad at least that you don't believe in the tooth fairy Dre! Tell me, are you so afraid of death that you had to throw your away your brain for a sense of security? Be a man and live up to the facts, God is not real, nothing separates you from any other animal, and when you die it will be exactly the same as before you were born. GROW UP

 

[Nicholas1024]

Ballistics, please present something in the way of evidence instead of just trolling. If everyone did that type of stuff, we'd never get any further than

TEH BIBLE IS TRUE, N00BZ. U BE ULTIMAT LOZERZZ!!!!! L0L

See, I can yell my viewpoint without backing it up too.